Moreover, we do not agree with Appellant's contention that the Specification may be used by the Examiner only as a dictionary for the exclusive purpose of defining claim terms per se. The predecessor to our reviewing court has held that the Specification may also be used as required to answer the question of whether Appellant's claims on appeal define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the reference (i.e., the '152) patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441--42 (C.C.P.A. 1970). The court in Vogel noted that, in general, the Specification: "sets forth at least one tangible embodiment within the claim, and it is less difficult and more meaningful to judge whether that thing has been modified in an obvious manner." Vogel, 422 F.2d at 442. The court further stated that: "use of the [Specification] is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined." Id.Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06